Naked Justice: Arrested for Nudity in His Own Kitchen
You’re standing in your kitchen making coffee. You are naked, but no one else is home. It’s early in the morning and you are in the privacy of your own home. All right, so maybe you’re a little bit odd, and maybe not everyone makes coffee naked. But your house, your rules, right?
That’s probably what Virginia resident Eric Williamson was thinking last Monday morning as he made himself coffee while dressed in nothing but his birthday suit. Unfortunately for Williamson, he wasn’t quite as alone as he thought. Walking through his yard were a woman and her seven-year-old son, on their way to the son’s school. The woman — a wife of a police officer – saw Williamson’s naked torso through his window and called the cops. Williamson was arrested and charged with indecent exposure.
There are some disputed accounts of this story. It is unclear precisely what time of the morning it happened and whether or not the man moved to another window as the mother and child walked across the lawn in order to remain in their range of vision.What’s not in dispute here is that the man was in his own home and the mother and kid were on his property, walking across his grass.
Perhaps the fact that the mother is a police officer’s wife had nothing to do with the overblown reaction, including the arrest of the man and an investigation to determine if this has ever happened with Williamson before, but I think we can guess it was a factor. Something seems to have made the police department all too eager to arrest a guy for being nude in his own kitchen.
Williamson seems like the victim of cops gone wild. How many people do things in their own home that they wouldn’t do in public? The sanctity of our house is the last bastion many of us have.
Whether it’s something simple like smoking during dinner (outlawed in most public places) or something less innocent involving nudity and preferably our partner or spouse, we feel safe and protected in our house — or at least we should, presuming the activity isn’t criminal.
But nosy people and prudish neighbors think that if they wouldn’t do it, you shouldn’t be doing it either. Maybe most of us close the drapes if we’re walking around in just our skin, but we don’t have to — no such law exists. I’m sure it did not cross Williamson’s mind, as he walked into the kitchen and reached for the coffee pot, that a woman would be walking her kid across his lawn and looking in his window.
I agree 100% with Michele. While discussing this story with my mother-in-law this week, I posed this very arguement to her and she agreed. Different treatment based on race is the issue of the day; but we pay little or now attention to the disparate treatment of males in our society. We notice when people play the race card, but not the female gender card. By the way I am female.
I used to do the same thing, but, with my looks and beautiful body and equipage, it got so my yard was a danged traffic jam! All the nosy neighbors were wearing a path through my lawn. Women were sneaking in, if I left my door unlocked. It was a nightmare!
Women, good; men, bad! So ends equal protection under the law.
The wife invaded his privacy and was a Peeping Tom. She should be charged. He was at home, minding his own business.
Did the women get charged with trespassing?
“One thing is… ah… for certain… The police er…. acted… ah… stupidly”.
Naked Beer Summit 2009!!!
As far as I know the law is still on the books that you cannot legally have sex wife your spouse in Virginia.
Virginia has lots of similar laws; many well suited to flexing with whatever the cops, judges or magistrates desire.
Virginia’s reputation shared amongst 18 wheeler tractor trailer drivers is, “Welcome to the Communist Wealth of Virginia.” because they know that the sting of the law’s long arm of justice applies equally – but, out of state folks get special treatment.
And in many cases, out of country guests get even better treatment.
Take for instance the huge number of illegal Hispanic immigrants that are literally choking the life out of Virginia.
Call John Law in Virginia to report a naked Hispanic male is fixing his coffee in his own (government loan subsidized) house and you will be informed that he has the “Right” to do whatever he wants to because “We live in a free society.”
“Adopt a neighborhood” busy bodies diligently police (up) streets and yards in many of Virginia’s cities and towns.
They pickup trash and newspapers out of your yard; even after you ask them not to. If you own a Labrador retriever that loves water; likes to go hunting, fishing and swimming with you, just be mindful and bring him inside your home when it rains. It doesn’t cost anything for one of those tree hugger, spend like hell on their cats while their own kids go hungry liberals drops a dime on you and the next thing you know the Animal Warden and/or Sheriff knocks on your door with a Court subpoena charging you with animal cruelty.
Yes they say, Virginia is For Lovers. Just not the kind that like to get naked or people that have to pee. Virginia recently closed most of it’s “Rest Areas” because the state is out of money.
Sounds like a violation of his 4th Amendment rights to me.
Eric Williamson lives in Springfield, Virginia; part of Fairfax County, which is made up and almost entirely run by imported Northeastern states extreme liberals.
Mr. Williamson doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning his case.
Ridiculous situation. I think the woman and her child should keep to the sidewalks and Mr. Williamson, unless his house is way more out of the way than it seems, should keep his blinds closed. The whole thing should be dropped as stupid.
Sadly, I suppose the answer to Papa Swamp’s question is no… When it should be a yes.
If this mother and son had walked past a woman standing naked near her coffee pot, the mother might have covered her sons eyes, made a joke, giggled nervously and continued on to school where he would have had an awesome story to tell his buddies in the school yard.
I think that’s mainly because the female form, when seen naked, is considered ART by some. Beautiful. And the naked male body to most is odd, intimidating. Ugly.
Case in point, Playboy magazine sells 2.6 million copies a month, and Playgirl magazine was discontinued in 2009 due to poor sales.
Mr Williamson, however creepy looking, is entitled to his privacy, and need only hire a competent attorney to have his name cleared and hopefully win a civil case against the city for a violation of his first amendment rights. Maybe when he gets the money, he can buy some curtains and a fence.
Trespassing, peeping and contributing to the delinquency of a minor…all charges that should be laid to her before this guy even starts his civil suits over his privacy.
Have the woman and child arrested for trespassing. Next time shoot both.
No D.A. with half a brain will touch this case.
She committed a trespassing charge to see him naked in his own kitchen; therefore, there was no indecent exposure. He should not have been arrested. She, on the other hand, is asking to be charged for trespassing. She had no business calling the cops. She should have made a nice little joke about the naked man in his house. The charges against NEEDS to be dismissed.
don’t the liberals allow a group to bicycle around Seattle nude ?
I saw the man interviewed on tv and he is getting railroaded.
he should have known better then vote republican
The only thing creepy about this guy is he looks like Grizzly Adams; his appearance is perfect for the 1970′s. She should be charged as a Peeping Tom or else the case should be dropped completely for its stupidity on her part.
My authority on this opinion is that I watch true crime shows. So here I go; men looking into women’s windows often come back to attack the woman. It really is two different things. That woman is more like Mrs Cravitz from Bewitched.
If they went to the trouble to arrest him, he will have to plea-bargain the charge down,
and she will not get charged for anything.
All that matters is she’s a woman,and the wife of the Chief of Police.
If the law really worked, he would have not been arrested,she would have and, the chief resigned.
George Orwell,Animal Farm (you know the quote)
The woman should be charged with tresspassing! This is an outrage and indefensible. I don’t care who she is married to, she is totally wrong and basically, broke the law.
sounds like we need a civil war to clean up the country.
No where in the story does it say that the woman and her son were on the grass, not the sidewalk.
23. Lisa:
No where in the story does it say that the woman and her son were on the grass, not the sidewalk.
IT WAS on the news …they cut through this mans property.
Once again we engage in the exercise of making asses out of ourselves by ignorantly speaking of things we know nothing about or with incomplete information.
How about the fact that the path that the child who saw this and his mother were on is a path between two houses that was commonly used by schoolchildren. Using a pathway that is frequently used is not in the slightest bit trespassing.
And if a person passing by incidentally happens to see someone inside doing something, that is not peeping. No one has an obligation to avert their eyes or walk around with blinders on. One is entitled to look about the world and if they were to see someone being murdered through someone’s windows, it would hardly be a defense that the witness was peeping.
Let’s add the fact that schoolchildren used this pathway to get to the schoolbus stop across the street. Not only was the inside of the house visible to such children from the side pathway, but the view through the front window was visible from the bus stop, where children congregated.
Let’s also add to the fact that the case law — I know its rather absurd to actually consider the law these days — is very clear that one can be convicted when exposing himself to those in public even when he is inside his own residence. If a person deliberately disregards the protection of his walls and makes use of their windows instead to make such conduct public, he is responsible for the exposure and not those who might see him while passing by.
Especially in the case where one knows of the great potential for children being present, he has an affirmative obligation to cover his windows so that he cannot be seen if he wants to prance around naked. For the protection of children, extra precautions are necessary.
Is this particular guy guilty or innocent?
I don’t know, and neither does anyone else except him and the people who saw him.
Why not wait for the trial and the evidence, rather than shooting your mouth off??
perhaps you should take your own advice?
Bender, the children would still be going through this man’s property to see him naked; they are trespassing. He should be able to be naked in his own house. Period.
Sebastian — do you know what an easement is?
As for being naked in his own house, period, the law begs to differ. Directly on point is the Georgia case, Byous v. State, 121 Ga. App. 654, where a guy inside his own house, but visible to children outside, had his conviction upheld. The majority of courts considering the question of indecent exposure while inside the home have agreed.
He may have a right to be naked in his own home, but if he is, he does not have a right to have the windows unobstructed so as to be visible to the public outside. Windows do not equal walls.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin
How many more of our freedoms must we give up before the country becomes the Banana Republic the left and their fascist cohorts across the pond idealize.
Just because a path is used does not make it public property. Children should be taught not to look into the windows of ANYONES house, period. Unless this man was pressed against the glass I’m not sure how she could see what she claims to have seen. What people do in the confines of their own home (unless against the law) is no ones business.
If they charge him, it would follow that they have to charge this woman as well. Trespassing, peeping Tom, should just be the beginning but they won’t.
Remember Big “Sister” is watching you.
Once it’s established fact (in the court documents) that the woman was on private property when she looked into the windows, her name should be on a billboard in the middle of town, to warn everyone that she’s a Peeping Thomasina.
She saw his TORSO? Seriously?
If this is actually what happened the woman should be charged with trespassing, and the chief of police should be fired for incompetence for letting this go on.
Michele, you claim that that the woman saw his “torso” but the link you provided says he claimed he exposed his genitalia “inadvertently.” That’s a pretty significant omission.
Doesn’t it seem really strange that a guy can get arrested for indecent exposure for exposing his “torso” through the window? A man can’t get arrested in America for exposing his torso on the beach–why would the police care if he did in his kitchen?
Other accounts of the event indicated that he passed by several windows clearly exposing himself to the woman and her son. Your version has him claiming it was dark and he had no idea he could be seen. If it was still dark and he was in a lighted house, he’s an idiot for not knowing he would be clearly visible. I think the guy’s a perv.
#25, have you looked at this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57yi3Asgov4&feature=related
You will notice there are two windows next each other in his kitchen, his door is on the side. The path you speak of is behind the kitchen door side according to the reporter standing on the property. Obviously, if someone is “cutting through his yard” to get on off that path they would by their movement across that yard would walk past his side kitchen door and then continuing on around the corner to the front get the impression he was moving from window to window when in fact he could be standing stationary at the counter.
Was it Williamson’s intent to exhibit himself? There is more than enough reasonable doubt to believe that the woman and her daughter were trespassing and engaging in voyeurism than Williamson was engaging in exhibitionism. Remember, we supposedly live in a country where you are presumed innocent and the onus is on the accuser to PROVE their accusation.
Now if you have a link to an aerial map that shows the house situated with the “path” that might settle the issue. Especially if that path is “behind” or “beside” the kitchen door entrance as the reporter in this video seems to indicate.
In a world of common sense, this guy would be treated as the village idiot, women and children would avoid his yard, and Tom Sawyer types would throw rocks at his house and taunt him to no end. He might also close his blinds or what the heck, chase after these little rascals with a pot on his head while firing a shot gun in the air. And great fun would be had by all. But he probably would serve 30 days in jail anyway.
People are so quick to hurt others. I do not understand why the woman did not go to the front door, tell the man that they could see in his windows etc. Instead , she tries to brand someone for life?
Yes, I would have gone and spoken with him…brought my husband. But I would not have just filed charges and tried to hurt someone. If he continued to do what I thought was “inappropriate” then we would take further steps.
And the kid..if this scars him for life he’s in for a lot of crap along the way that is going to blow his mind completely out of the water!!!
There were other ways to handle this.
Sorry…’ment to say scars “her” for life…and blow “her” mind…
Why isn’t the womans identity revealed? Does she have a history of peeping and trespass? I thought in this country we had the right to confront his accuser, or is this just an example of sheila jackson lees’ constitutional right not to be offended.
For what it’s worth, I used to live in a house with an alleyway that was used as a shortcut to a school. MY privacy and right to enjoy my own property was abrogated — our car was scratched, trash littered our driveway, and women would stand right outside my kitchen window to chat and look right inside at our table while we were trying to eat. Their voices were so loud that they interfered with our conversation. It never seemed to occur to them that what they were doing was rude. So — I had to close the blinds and not be able to enjoy the sunshine in order to get any privacy. When I had a locked gate installed in the alley, I became public enemy number one because some lard-butts had to walk an extra 100 feet.
“Maybe most of us close the drapes if we’re walking around in just our skin, but we don’t have to — no such law exists.”
Such laws do indeed exist, if the windows face public thoroughfares.
You do have fewer rights to privacy in your own home than you may think. If his window is visible from a well travelled walkway or thoroughfare and a photographer were to stand on public land and take his picture nude at the coffee pot, that would probably be legal. Now disseminating that picture probably wouldn’t be.
I do my laundry lots of times wearing nothing. If anyone is so inclined, they can walk the l/2 mile up my driveway, try to pass 2 barking dogs,and machete their way thru hundred year old cactus plants surrounding my house just to get a glimpse of me transferring my clothes from the washer to the dryer.
Just be sure to cover the eyes of the hordes of school children on their way to the bus stop as they stare thru my oversized windows with all the drapes wide open.
Sound ridiculous? So is this story. Cops wife sounds like the self-important neighborhood busy-body with way too much time on her hands.
Naked, huh? Sounds like a conservative issue to me.
The police chief should have had a friendly chat with the guy. He sounds like a reasonable man. This is sounds like the sort of place where a kid could get arrested for carrying a butter knife in his lunch box or a girl could get suspended for taking ibuprofen for her cramps. The world has gone crazy.
Much ado about nothing. The woman needs to be charged for peeping tom laws & trespassing; she needs to pay a big fine for ruining this innocent man’s life.
“Got a window in your shower? Board it up before some kid chasing a ball through your yard decides to look into your bathroom.”
Walking my dog one evening, I saw my female neighbor taking a shower. The window was facing the street. The glass was frosted, but you could see every anatomical detail. A few nights later, I noticed a group of teenage boys having a raucuously good time watching this woman in shower. I approached her the next day and alerted her to the “show” she was providing for the neighborhood. The very same night, a curtain went up on the window.
Unless you live on a private estate in the country, close the curtins if you walk around nude in your house. It’s just common sense.
I DO object to how the woman handled it, though. She should’ve asked her husband or another man in the neighborhood to talk to the neighbor. Let him know that what he was doing in the privacy of his home had become a public spectacle. If he was warned and did it again, then you’d have to wonder if it was intentional exhibitionism requiring some other form of intervention.
The man did not have floor-to ceiling windows. He was only seen from the waist up. So, they saw his naked chest. Do we arrest men at swimming pools? I agree, pull the curtains, but come on. If you were looking that hard, it’s your issue not his. I’ve always taught my kids we dont look in other people’s windows, it’s rude.
Now, if his genitals were pressed up against the glass, that’s another story, but nothing I’ve read indicates that. This woman needs a life.
Walking my dog one night, I saw my female neighbor taking a shower. The bathroom window was facing the street. The glass was frosted, but every anatomical detail was visible. Several nights later, I saw a group of teenage boys having a raucously good time watching her in the shower. The next day, I informed her of the “show” she was putting on for the neighborhood. That very night, a curtin went up on the window
If you’re going to walk around in the nude, close the curtins. It’s only common sense.
I DO object to how Williamson’s neighbor handled the situation. She should’ve had her husband, boyfriend or some other man in the neighborhood talk to Williamson. Let him know that what he was doing in the privacy of his home had become a public spectacle. Then, if he didn’t close the curtins or wear a bathrobe, you’d have to wonder if he was an exhibitionist and some other form of intervention was needed.
“Indecent exposure” requires intent. Pretty much the police would have to prove he knew the people were there watching him, and exposed himself to them intentionally. I don’t see how prosecutors can leap that particular hurdle.
He ought to sue the hell out of that woman for invasion of privacy. For starters.
I’m taking my clothes off as I write this comment! It’s my house and I’ll type naked if I feel like it. The woman doth protest too much (and the law obliges her idiocy).
And in other news, in MN a judge ruled in favor of the flying Imans, and in KS a judge ruled that a homeowner may defend himself by lethal force, but just can’t threaten the intruder. Wait until Obama appoints more liberal judges – the Onion will be forced out of business.
Here is the woman’s account of the story. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
It’s a quite different than Mr. Williamson’s self-serving account.
For one, it happened at 8:40 a.m. as she was walking her child to school, not at 5:30 a.m., for whatever reason anyone would be up then.
Secondly, as Bender points out, the woman and her son walked on a pathway BETWEEN the two houses, not “cutting across the lawn”. (And even if it had actually been “trespassing”, trespassing is not actually a crime unless the property is fenced or posted with “no trespassing” signs.
And third, Mr. William was seen from the street in his open garage, not from his kitchen window just a few feet away.
Sorry if this is a repeat dunno if last comment posted, but there seems to be more info. For one thing, he is next to a bus stop. The original news mentioned she cut across his front yard, however across from his front yard is a kid’s bus stop.
Second, another person has also mentioned that he appeared such, twice. So it changes in my opinion to whether or not he did so with intent, or he did so inadvertently in sight of others.
It’s more complex than it seems. My money is on him doing so accidentally, but it’s not a case of overreacting in that sense.
This is all easy to understand once you drop the misconception that the government is here to help you and that they have the slightest interest in justice.
No, you are here to be a slave to the government, that is, the ruling class. You are here to pay their salaries. You are here to provide their rent and their automobiles for them. You are the property of the state, for the benefit of the state.
The government exists so that its members can be a privileged ruling class, with better health care benefits than you have, better pensions, etc. Your mistake, your consternation, is all due to your misplaced understanding of the very purpose of government and its agents.
Police, in particular, are a privileged class. (The job is less dangerous than agriculture or transportation, so spare me the “lives on the line” statistical falsehood.) A policeman recently put 24 rounds into his ex’s boyfriend while off-duty and his department covered it up as “self-defence”.
Sounds like she should be arrested for being a peeping tom.
Bender has to be a liberal. The “ends” justifies the “means.”
Did you see the suit being brought against Louisville Slugger bats for making an aluminum bat that makes the baseball go fast?
A pitcher threw a pitch, the batter hit it, the ball struck the pitcher in the temple and killed him.
It’s the bat’s manufacturer’s fault that the pitcher died, you see.
Just like it’s the guy standing in his own house who’s at fault.
Forget health care reform. Tort reform: now.
John Edwards didn’t steal his millions letting ambulances just drive by to the hospital….
Many years ago, it was a provision of the law that to be convicted of indecent exposure, a male had to have an erection. It came up because a friend of mine was at a beach party at night and walked off into the dark to pee. A policeman saw him and arrested him for this offense. He was really frightened in that he was applying to medical school and worried that such a conviction would jeopardize his future. He was acquitted on those grounds. I wonder if the law has changed or if there is more to be revealed in this case.
Post 25 Bender:
Where are you getting your facts from? If you have a link please post it so we can read it, if not you’re making things up. Also, what constitutes “Exposing”? Is it standing in front of a window for a continued period of time in the hopes of being seen naked? Or is it simply moving around one’s home as one normally does except they are naked. You seem to find this man guilty even though you are as ignorant as the rest of us. Are you this woman’s brother?
To the “Cuffy Meigs” in Comment #1:
Could you please choose a new handle for yourself?
I know it’s a lot to ask, but I have been blogging under that name for the past 3 years at Perfunction and have kind of a “brand” with that handle among the right side of the blogosphere (i.e. several ‘lanches from top blogs like Instapundit, HotAir, National Review, Ace of Spades). I realize it’s a literary reference and very much in the public domain, but I’d hate for there to be any confusion between your comments and my own very well-established blog identity.
Much thanks,
Cuffy Meigs
perfunction.typepad.com
Here is a question – why do we not know this woman’s name? She filed a public complaint with the police, and has had this man brought up on charges as a result.
Why is she allowed to remain anonymous?
Just because a path is used does not make it public property
Hundreds of years of common law establish that, while the public might not have ownership, it does have a right-of-use.
If this guy’s defense is that this child and his mother were “trespassers” and/or that he had an absolute right to do whatever he wanted in his home, he is going to lose, because that is NOT the law. And anyone advising him to make such a defense is a rather poor advocate.
Since the defendant has admitted the conduct at issue, and has admitted being seen by members of the public, the only viable defense he has is the question of intent. Did he intend to expose himself to those outside the home? Did he realize that he could be seen? Was he aware, in his sleepy and drunken state (his roommates have stated that he was drunk that morning), that the curtains were not pulled? Or was this exposure totally inadvertent?
That is the ONLY viable defense this guy has. If he tries to play the victim, he could end up being the victim in jail.
Of course, ONCE AGAIN, this is a fact-determinative case. And before making any conclusions as to guilt or innocence, and before shooting our mouths off in ignorance, it would be nice to hear and see ALL of the evidence, and not merely this guy’s self-serving statements to the media.
OK, Bender, explain this: here’s a very relevant fact from the Georgia case you so half-a**ssedly cite: “Each instance [of exposing himself] occurred in the twilight of an early December morning; the defendant, *******after apparently looking out to ascertain that children were present******, stood in the archway at the rear of an unlighted room silhouetted against the light of the second room, *****dropped his bathrobe, and fondled his privates. ******Directly between him and the children the front of the house offered a view through a five-foot picture window. ”
(paren) and **** mine.
So, Bender of Counsel, you think MENS REA had any part in that case? What frickin matchbook university did you get your law degree from?
You’re an utter buffoon.
Cite one, biblio.
To the “Cuffy Meigs” in Comment #1:
Could you please choose a new handle for yourself?
I know it’s a lot to ask, but I have been blogging under that name for the past 3 years at Perfunction and have kind of a “brand” with that handle among the right side of the blogosphere (i.e. several ‘lanches from top blogs like Instapundit, HotAir, National Review, Ace of Spades). I realize it’s a literary reference and very much in the public domain, but I’d hate for there to be any confusion between your comments and my own very well-established blog identity.
Much thanks,
Cuffy Meigs
Bender is a complet a**hat. The Georgia case he cites includes this recitation of the facts:
“Each instance [of exposing himself to children outside his house] occurred in the twilight of an early December morning; the defendant, ******after apparently looking out to ascertain that children were present, stood in the archway at the rear of an unlighted room silhouetted against the light of the second room, dropped his bathrobe, and fondled his privates.**** Directly between him and the children the front of the house offered a view through a five-foot picture window.”
[paren] and XXXXX mine.
So, there was “mens rea” in the defendant’s actions, the INTENT to commit an act that is an offense under the law. The defendant tried to say that his presence in his house somehow protected him from the charge of indecent exposure, but it didn’t— because he INTENDED to expose himself!!!
Lets hope Bender doesn’t have a license to practice law. Because if he does, his clients are scaREWED!
With cellphone cameras, broadband and youtube etc. I’m content to close the blinds and/or curtains when I’m nekkid.
While I agree that this is blown way out of proportion, ol’ fuzzy face should be glad it wasn’t some punk filming his naked arse and posting it on the Net.
That being said, if a man called the police over seeing a naked woman I do there would be a double-standard as to who ended up charged with something criminal.
Bender has to be a liberal.
Another case of someone ignorantly talking out of their rear end.
Bender: Where are you getting your facts from? If you have a link please post it so we can read it
You folks seem to think you know everything already. Go look it up and investigate the facts yourself.
If you want me to do it, I charge $250 per hour for such legal services.
Sorry for the double post. My PC got hijacked by some spam website claiming it was infected with trojans, etc., and when I lost my Internet connection trying to get rid of it I thought my comment went to CyberLimbo.
So, Bender of Counsel, you think MENS REA had any part in that case?
Yeah, you maroon. Intent is an issue. Intent is THE issue in this case. Why do you think I wrote:
Since the defendant has admitted the conduct at issue, and has admitted being seen by members of the public, the only viable defense he has is the question of intent. Did he intend to expose himself to those outside the home? Did he realize that he could be seen? Was he aware, in his sleepy and drunken state (his roommates have stated that he was drunk that morning), that the curtains were not pulled? Or was this exposure totally inadvertent?
Bender,
OK, I don’t go about the house naked, but I do have a couple pairs of boxer draws I’m sure would frighten children. What does the law say if one of the little beggers espies me through my kitchen window and is traumatized?
Helzapoppin: The defendant tried to say that his presence in his house somehow protected him from the charge of indecent exposure, but it didn’t
Just like a great many people here — too many — are saying the exact same thing, “that his presence in his house somehow protected him from the charge of indecent exposure.”
I agree with you. It didn’t. It didn’t in the Georgia case or in any of the other cases in the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the matter. And it doesn’t protect the defendant in this case.
Nevertheless, a lot of people who don’t know what they are talking about insist that it does protect him. I am merely trying to disabuse them of that incorrect notion.
Like I said, multiple times now — INTENT IS THE ISSUE.
Leave Cuffy Alone!!!
To the “Cuffy Meigs” in Comment #1:
Could you please choose a new handle for yourself?
I know it’s a lot to ask, but I have been blogging under that name for the past 3 years at Perfunction and have kind of a “brand” with that handle among the right side of the blogosphere (i.e. several ‘lanches from top blogs like Instapundit, HotAir, National Review, Ace of Spades). I realize it’s a literary reference and very much in the public domain, but I’d hate for there to be any confusion between your comments and my own very well-established blog identity.
Much thanks,
Cuffy Meigs
perfunction.typepad.com
And sorry for my double post — I thought the URL at the bottom of my first comment snagged the spam filter, hence the second comment w/o URL.
Bender: Hundreds of years of common law establish that, while the public might not have ownership, it does have a right-of-use.
You’re right in that there may have been a public easement across Williamson’s property, but schoolchildren’s alleged regular use of the path does not nearly establish that. The existence of an easement across Williamson’s property is an evidentiary matter that needs to be resolved. There are a lot of facts that need to be resolved to allow us to form a conclusion about the case.
Here is a good summary of the relevant law from Wisneski v. State of Maryland, 398 Md. 578, 598 (indecent exposure conviction upheld where defendant exposed himself in his own home to a guest in the home) –
“The majority of state courts, though, have concluded that an indecent exposure may be criminalized if it occurs in a private dwelling, either when interpreting a common law offense or a statute. fn9 Some have held that the “public” nature of the offense of indecent exposure is met when the defendant’s indecent exposure occurs in front of an unobstructed window inside of a private dwelling. See Legel, 321 N.E.2d at 166 (holding that defendant indecently exposed himself in his own home by standing on top of his dining room table, under a light fixture, at night, and in clear view of the neighboring home through unobstructed sliding glass doors); State v. Odom, 554 So.2d 1281, 1284 (La. Ct. App. 1989) (upholding conviction of defendant for obscenity for standing inside his home in front of an exposed window and knocking on it to attract the attention of the neighboring children); Commonwealth v. Bishop, 296 Mass. 459, 6 N.E.2d 369, 370 (Mass. 1937) (affirming conviction of defendant for indecently exposing himself in his own home, visible by his neighbor through a window, holding that the public place element was satisfied because it was “‘an intentional act of lewd exposure, offensive to one or more persons’”).”
The defense offered by folks here that this defendant had an absolute right to do whatever he wanted, merely because he was in his own home, will fail because it is not the law.
The nerve of that guy, there should be a crackdown, we need to build more jails!
Once again we engage in the exercise of making asses out of ourselves by ignorantly speaking of things we know nothing about or with incomplete information.
Bender, I can think of no frequent commenter with greater expertise in that.
Post 66 Bender:
Excuse me but if you are stating facts not readily available you must produce the evidence. All we know from here is that the woman and child were trespassing. Nowhere in this story is there any reference to what you described. We cannot assume there was a public passageway commonly used by children. If such was the case it is your responsibility to prove it not mine for fishing for it. A link would have been the quickest way but you’re too lazy to supply one. As for your suggestion to give $250 for legal services you can go to hell. You’re another reason why I hate lawyers, obstinate and arrogant.
The case boils down to the fact a strange woman–who happens to be the chief of police’s wife–looked into a window to see a naked man in his own house; she committed the crime of being a peeping tom & trespassed onto his private property. He did nothing wrong. For him to commit indecent exposure, he has to be outside of his house naked for a period of time for someone to see him. He was not. The innocent man was naked in his own kitchen.
The woman needs to be charged with committing 2 crimes: the peeping tom law & trespassing. The charges against the man needs to be dropped ASAP.
I’m going to bet that Williamson winds up as a registered sex offender. And I completely agree that if the sexes were swapped, the pedestrian would wind up the same way instead.
Obviously…..it is curtains for this guy!!
post 73, Jazz:
…”You’re right in that there may have been a public easement across Williamson’s property”
the key word is “MAY”. Was there an easement or not? Yes or no.
Bender is trying to be the smartest person in the room. Unfortunately for him, his citations do not describe what Williamson is accused of. Other than that, he’s a jerk.
A lot of heat generated by this story, but few have dug very far for the facts before coming to conclusions. Check out the story on local news radio site for other side of story.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
Seems this guy, or his lawyer, mounted a good Information Operation operation to to get himself portrayed as an innocent. Never jump to a conclusion until facts from both side are presented.
Uhmmm…Bender? Did you happen to note that the case law you present uses example where the person convicted _deliberately_ exposed himself?
That part which satisfied the requirements was not that they saw him from a path, but rather that he followed them to a front window…thus showing intent.
If you practice do you actually charge your clients? I’ve read several of the reports on this and _none_ claim:
“How about the fact that the path that the child who saw this and his mother were on is a path between two houses that was commonly used by schoolchildren.”
If you have a cite I’d like to see it. Secondly that could still be considered inadvertent. It’s _intent_ per the cites you, yourself, post.
Sheesh.
The “rulings” handed down by courts in the US over the past decades have proven that when it applying the law to Caucasian Males, it is no longer innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven innocent. And even here, how many of the relevant facts that prove innocence are barred from being presented as evidence?
Every day, activist judges, legislative hoards and others work to destroy the very basis of our Constitution and the Rule of Law, especially when it concerns the Caucasian Male.
@28, I particularly enjoyed the B.Franklin quote.
Because Franklin, it’s well known, within the confines of his own home, was an Air-Bathing
Nudist. Kind of goes to Founders’ Intent, doesn’t it?
Bender. That’ll be $250.
Agnes wrote:
My authority on this opinion is that I watch true crime shows. So here I go; men looking into women’s windows often come back to attack the woman.
And in this case, the woman attacked the man, by having five police officers break into his house and arrest him. She sounds like a dangerous pervert to me.
bender wrote:
Is this particular guy guilty or innocent?
I don’t know, and neither does anyone else except him and the people who saw him.
Why not wait for the trial and the evidence, rather than shooting your mouth off??
Funny thing — Michael Nifong said the same thing about the charges against the Duke lacross team members charged with rape. And we know how justice was served in that particlar case. If those three guys, who turned out to be completely factually innocent hadn’t had an extraordinarily good legal team, they’d be in prison.
The fact that some attorneys gloss over is that simply being arrested is a blot on a person’s permanent record. For example, may job application forms ask “Have you ever been arrested?” rather than “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?”
Do we know that this woman (what the hell is her name?) didn’t have some personal animus against Williamson? Perhaps she just didn’t like him because she thought he looked like a “filthy hippie pervert” and deserved to be arrested … Would she have pressed charges if she had seen the pastor of her church under similar circumstances?
80. BPS:
“Obviously…..it is curtains for this guy!!”
LMAO!
Hmm.
Are plumber’s and construction worker’s cracks illegal too? Heh
“Using a pathway that is frequently used is not in the slightest bit trespassing.”
Even if someone else already mentioned it, I’ll reiterate.
It is trespassing unless you have the right of way.
Is there a right of way?
Leave the GEICO Caveman ALONEEEEEEEEEEE!
“Sebastian — do you know what an easement is?”
Where is the easement registered on the deed, Bender?
responding to Frank IBD post #50
“For one, it happened at 8:40 a.m. as she was walking her child to school, not at 5:30 a.m., for whatever reason anyone would be up then.”
If she was walking her child to school at 8:40am they were late as heck. She is just trying to make her actions look better for her.
“Secondly, as Bender points out, the woman and her son walked on a pathway BETWEEN the two houses, not “cutting across the lawn”. (And even if it had actually been “trespassing”, trespassing is not actually a crime unless the property is fenced or posted with “no trespassing” signs.”
Really? the story says & i quote “Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently [had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.]
“And third, Mr. William was seen from the street in his open garage, not from his kitchen window just a few feet away.”
From the videos of his kitchen & the ohter one with the reporter out front of his house, i don’t see a garage do you?
From The White House: The police acted stupidly – this is gender and racial sterotyping & discrimination -
As for what a know-nothing idiot and asshat Bender is, I would remind folks that an independent judicial officer — the magistrate who issued the warrant in this case — has already considered the facts, at least the version as presented to him by either the police or the complaining witness, and, based on those facts, has already determined that probable cause exists to believe this defendant is guilty of a crime.
If you all think that simply being in your own house is enough to defend against a charge of indecent exposure, I suggest that when trick-or-treaters come to your home this Saturday, you greet them at your door in the nude (you could say you are playing the Sensitive Naked Guy from Saturday Night Live (many years ago)). See how far that defense gets you.
@ Frank “It’s a quite different than Mr. Williamson’s self-serving account.”
So the woman’s self serving account is different from the man’s self serving account. :rolleyes:
What is the delinquent parent’s reason for getting the kid to school so late? Why shouldn’t her privacy be invaded on that account, by your lights?
You know, the light from your dim bulb?
As per WHOOPI, I am sure he wasn’t “naked” naked. And as per others from Hollywood, I wonder if a child in Springfield is really a child. Just a few thoughts for the defense. The defendant might also want to call on Woody Allen for support.
harry @ 81: Was there an easement or not? Yes or no.
Given the facts that we have right now, we don’t know. That’s my point. One of Bender’s assumptions appears to be that there WAS an easement based on frequent use. There simply aren’t facts enough in the public arena to form an informed opinion yet. Additionally, the existence of an easement may not even be an issue if the property owner (I don’t know whether Williamson owned the property or not) KNEW the public was using the path and consented to it. In that case, the result would be the same as if there actually was an easement: The occupants of Williamson’s house should have been aware of the possibility of traffic across the property.
All sorts of other issues are implicated, too, like frequency of the path’s use, obstructions between the path and the opening allegedly allowing a view into the house, the size and location of the opening, whether the glass was tinted, etc. There’s just a lot of information we don’t have.
Post 94, Bender:
Fine, let’s put the kid on the witness stand and have them describe in full detail what they saw. I’m sure its mother would be just peachy keen about that.
#1. The woman here IS the crimminal. (there can be no question of this, she confessed)
a.) She did not have permission to be on this man’s property.
b.) She admitted intentionally looking into the man’s window while trespassing on his property; which, in nearly all jurisdictions, is a crimminal offense of peeping.
#2. She took advantage, in an unethical & probably illegal way, of her relationship with law enforcement to violate more than one of the man’s consitutional rights. She used her influence to do harm to his person and reputation by causing a false arrest and prosecution.
I sincerely hope that this gentleman, and the greater community, does not just laugh and let this go. However you view it; gender discrimination, nanny-statism, prosecutorial malfeasance, law enforcement misconduct, etc. it is a symptom of a general disregard for individuals’ rights and a further break-down in our system of equal justice and common-sense in a civil society. The woman must be subjected to crimminal & civil laws and the police & prosecutor must be challenged. Whether they are ultimately punished in any significant way does not matter – they must be held to account. If not, we’ve all slid much further down the slope.
You know, every state–and in many states the counties within–may have its own definition of ‘indecent exposure’. What’s criminal in one may be perfectly legal in another. And vice versa, of course.
So, it’s sort of futile to apply what the laws or ordinances of one place, even the judgments of courts in one place have to say about behavior in another.
Some cities in New England, for instance, have laws that permit nudity in public places; other places criminalize nudity in one’s own home. Some allow for nude sunbathing on your own property; others frown upon it most severely, up to including it as an offense that will get you on a ‘sex offenders’ registry.
What matters here is solely Virginia law and perhaps Fairfax Co. ordinances that define the law, not what happened in Georgia, Texas, N. Carolina, or Washington state.
Based on a local’s comment at The Week, I think I’ve located the house on Google maps. No street view available for this one.
Behind the house is a public tennis court. Fifty feet or so in back of the house is a well-worn path beside the tennis court. The path leads to a sidewalk that runs about 40-50 ft from the side of the house.
The front of the house faces a loop, not the main Arley thoroughfare. That explains the unusual notion that the kitchen is located at the front of the house. That’s not usual in modern building, even if the kitchen in my ’62 house is at the front.
I don’t know how Kosher it is to provide an address. I really wouldn’t like to cause the owners or renters further trouble.
Where is the ACLU. Maybe if he had been rolling around naked with a 5 year old they would have stepped up to the plate to defend his rights
Post 97 Jazz:
I asked you because Bender wouldn’t or couldn’t tell me directly. Doesn’t Bender know that in a court of law assumptions are laughable? You’re right there’s much too little information. And as usual news reporters always get it wrong. I’m siding with the naked guy until otherwise proven he intentially stood naked by the window waiting for passerby’s to observe him.
post 37, Sassenach:
At least you didn’t have David Gregory of NBC News accuse you of racism for putting up that gate. I can imagine the liberal POS Gregory interviewing the naked guy after putting up a fence.
Gregory: So why do you hate women and children?
Naked Man: I don’t hate women and children. I just wanna hang out naked in my own home without being arrested.
>>How about the fact that the path that the child who saw this and his mother were on is a path between two houses that was >>commonly used by schoolchildren. Using a pathway that is frequently used is not in the slightest bit trespassing.
Just because someone or many people frequently trespass onto someones property and eventually make a “path” does not negate the fact that it IS someone’s property and that they ARE TRESPASSING.
>>Let’s add the fact that schoolchildren used this pathway to get to the schoolbus stop across the street. Not only was the >>inside of the house visible to such children from the side pathway, but the view through the front window was visible from >>the bus stop, where children congregated.
Bad parenting… especially a police officer’s wife…
So, pretty much the trespassing issue make the nudity a moot point.
Lastly, according to your theory, if I was walking with my child near my neighbors house and saw her naked — through her bedroom window, bathroom, living room, etc. As long as I called the cops first and reported that my child could have seen her I wouldn’t be busted for peeping?
Imagine that.
Frankly, she’s a trespassing, peeping Tammy, bad parent on a power trip.
The government’s reason for existence is to protect the population and the rights thereof. Any government that becomes destructive to these ends should be summarily abolished. “We hold these truths to be self evident… that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them.” -Declaration of Independence
62. Akatsukami: “Cite one, biblio.”
Why bother? Simply take this test: Stand naked in a window facing a public thoroughfare. Wave at your neighbors and your neighbors’ children as they go by (what you wave with is optional). See how long it takes before you have a visit from the police.
Steve A wrote:
“Really? the story says & i quote “Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently [had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.]”
The Fox News story quotes only Mr. Williamson and two defense attorneys directly. The story of the woman “cutting through Mr. Williamson’s front yard” is Mr. Williamson’s hearsay version of what the woman actually said. Fox never bothered to follow up and find the woman’s version of the story. Nor did they bother asking the police about the case, either. Sloppy and sensationalistic reporting.
Unlike Fox News, WTOP actually bothered to ask the woman what she actually said.
Bender – There may, indeed, be case law on your side of the argument. There may be specific law, as well. But it totally misses the point, and that’s why people HATE lawyers. This should never have become a criminal issue. NEVER!
Before lawyers became such a great pestilence upon the land, people resolved these issues according to social norms: polite talking to one another. Of course, there are always the cranks, but this case would be much more clear, if the people involved had made some effort at REASONABLE, personal intervention and established the guy as a crank.
Imagine this narrative. She sees the guy overexposed. She learns to take a different route. He’s across the street from the bus stop, and his exposure is still a problem. She knocks on the door. He answers without covering up. She asks him to cover up for the sake of the kids. He refuses. She goes to the police. They ask him to cover up, warning him of the law in this regard. He persists in his behavior. Then they arrest him for indecent exposure. he has no defense. This then becomes a non-story: just some crank.
We don’t TALK to one another, anymore.
oh hey!!!! I’m typing naked!! Where are the voyeurs when I need them!!!?????
That cops wife is probably staking out windows in her neighborhood so you guys best be careful!!!!
Was she trespassing while taking a shortcut through his yard?
And she had a kid with her while committing trespass. Sounds like corruption of a minor to me.
I am always amazed at how people in general are so hypocritical about the Human Form.
As a child, I was never made to feel that my body was ugly, dirty, or bad. My folks didn’t run around nude, but If me or my brother happened to run into their room to tell important news, and either or both were nude, it was no big deal. No cover up, just a listen and a hug and off we went. That was normal for us. I grew up country. No close spying neighbors. We would swim nude in a plastic pool in the back yard. No one cared.
I doubt that in the last 10 years I have been dressed more than a couple dozen times when I made coffee in the morning( Winter ).
I have always slept nude, because for me it is the most comfortable. My wife of 30 years finally tried it at about year 10 or so and now can’t sleep with anything on. In the winter, with the blankets on, It is snuggle heaven.
The idea that a poor child’s view of a nekked human body will scar it for life is just totally preposterous. The wounded one is the daughter of the prudish Mom who then instilled the same crap into a growing mind. Modesty and chastity are better taught by example and honest talk than by the lesson she is teaching.
The whole entertainment industry rounds up my comment.
Anyway that is my take, Marc
In regards to an easement across the property: There are several possibilities. I am not a registered land surveyor in Virginia however, I am registered in several states. Each state has their own set of laws and this comment is not intended to be legal advice. Please contact your local atty and or land surveyor who is registered in your state.
1st type would be of record. That means that there is an ingress/egress or public access for the aforementioned property that would be recorded in the public record. Either the court house, recorders office or wherever Virginia records this type of document. It may also be on the original plat of survey. The public document would say what the easement is for and who has use of it. Not all easements are for the public.
Lets say it was a drainage easement or utility easement. Usually, the HOA, city/county or specific utility company would have use and right of entrance on these properties. There may even be a road but it would only be of legal use for the specified users.
2nd type is prescriptive easement. That type would be in place by use. Lets say the school kids along the path etc. That was actually the example used in my college course on legal issues. Think of it as being similar to the often misunderstood adverse possession. Generally, to perfect a prescriptive easements by a hostile user, there must be a quiet title lawsuit against the land owner and it the use must be proven to be open, notorious, hostile and continuous use. If the land owner has given permission, then there should be no prescriptive rights and the land owner can cancel the use whenever he wishes.
There may, indeed, be case law on your side of the argument. There may be specific law, as well.
If that is the law — THE END.
I know that it is no longer fashionable in the Age of Obama to consider the rule of law, or to consider facts before going ape-s**t on people, but there are still a few places where the law means things, such as Fairfax County, Virginia.
Here is the latest report, from the Washington Post –
“As officers tell it, the 45-year-old woman, the wife of a Fairfax police officer, was walking her son to school about 8:40 a.m. along a well-traveled path between public tennis courts and the house where Williamson had been living for three months when a noise drew her attention to a side door.
“That’s when she first noticed Williamson standing nude in the doorway, she said. When she and her son got to the sidewalk in front of the house on Arley Drive, they saw him again — this time, through a large window that appeared to have no drapes.
“Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings described Williamson’s version of what happened as “a gross exaggeration that was fueled by the media. . . . We don’t arrest people for being nude in their house.”
“The element of intent
“Washington area lawyers say the case, like others before it, will probably boil down to a crucial question: Did Williamson intend to be seen?”
The case will boil down to the crucial question of intent. Wow. Isn’t that what that asshat Bender said?
You know, it is putzes like you guys who give conservatives a bad name.
More from the Post story –
“One of Williamson’s roommates, who declined to give his name, said that he and the four other men living in the house felt less sympathy than anger now that they are left to make peace with neighbors and answer reporters’ questions.
“As for what really happened, the roommate said, “anything’s possible.” All he knows is that the kitchen curtains, which he said were Williamson’s, were not installed when he left for work Monday morning but that they were up when he got home.”
Great character witnesses those roommates are, huh?
It seems weird to me that simple nudity is considered so terrible that it’s such a crime.
It’s also interesting that most here have an actual sense of right and wrong, and that it appears to be at such variance with the law.
I guess Shakespeare was right when he said “Sometimes the law is an ass”
Look, if the guy didn’t look like one of the GEICO Cavemen he wouldn’t be in this kind of trouble.
Apparently now the police are going door to door to drum up new charges to bolster their sloppy, unethical case. The local school has gotten on the band wagon as well, trolling for more “victims”. What a witch hunt. I hope he sues the whole sorry lot of them.
Frank IBC:
This is the second forum in which I’ve seen you argue that bad and biased Fox News “quotes only Mr. Williamson and two defense attorneys.” You make sure to emphasize the “two defense attorneys.”
Did you not bother to pay attention and realize that one of these attorneys was arguing the woman’s side, or are you deliberately misleading us? Somewhat, what’s the word, “self-serving” of you, no?
But by all means, do continue self-righteously castigating those arguing the other side.
Moving from this particular case, I suppose that we should learn a lesson from this discussion:
If you’re a decent person and allow people to take a short-cut through your property, they can eventually gain a legal right to it. Not only that, but as a result they get to impose what you can do in the former privacy of your home, eg nudity.
So, you try to be nice, and in exchange, you could not only lose your some of your property, but also your right to behave as you wish in your house.
Conclusion?
biblio44: the guy wasn’t making a spectacle of himself standing in front of the window waving at passersby. He was minding his own business.
Interesting – the conservatives are the ones defending Mr. Hippie’s right to be nude in his own home. It’s the liberal who is the prudish Aunt Agatha.
Does biblio’s knee jerk left in his sleep? I have the feeling that if we were all angry at the man and insisted he was at fault, biblio would automatically take his side and scold us for being so uptight. But he checks the thread out, sees most PJM readers consider his arrest an outrage and so therefore – the cops must have been right to arrest him!
Such an independent thinker, that biblio.
Hmm… well I walk around naked in my house all the time. I live near a high school and kids walk by my house all the bloody time.
Have some seen me naked? Probably. Have I ever been brought up for indecent exposure? Nope.
Now have I ever purposefully tried to expose myself to anyone? No.
Is this what happened here? I have no clue. Personally I’m just going to go with the default answer for now. The guy inside is completly innocent, until PROVEN guilty.
Right now it’s he said she said isn’t it? (No clue if there’s video proof or something.)
Uh-oh, somebody got caught telling inconsistent stories.
From the Post story — “Williamson, reached by phone, said that his roommates had left for work by 5:30 that morning and that he was happy to have the house to himself. He made coffee and eggs and started packing up his belongings. He is a commercial diver and had lost his job a few days earlier, and he was planning to move to his mother’s house near Virginia Beach.”
From the latest story from myfoxdc —
“Not only was he photographed and fingerprinted, but Williamson claims police called his employer. “Before I was even out of jail they called my place of work,” Williamson told FOX 5. “My place of work had phoned me before I was even out of jail saying I need to leave the house immediately — not able to afford the bad publicity.”"
In one story, he says that he lost his job a few days earlier. In another story, he tries to infer that he still had a job, but he lost it because the police called his employer. Both of those stories can’t be true.
This guy’s credibility is sinking by the day. (I noticed also that he shaved off his beard. When people try to make themselves “look better,” that is usually a good indication that they are trying to build up their credibility.)
Of course, it is the height of stupidity for any defendant to be making repeated statements about his case. I’m sure the Commonwealth’s Attorney appreciates all this free evidence he is giving them.
Sounds like it’s time to erect (sic) a fence to prevent access to the property. Preferably a 6 foot high privacy fence.
Were I the manin this situation, I would have immediately filed a complaint against the woman for tresspassing and being a peeping tom.
It’s clear from every news story I have read about this incident, including this article, that the woman was in the wrong, not Mr. Williamson.
Bender, those statements can be reconciled.
He was packing to leave in a day or two. The employer called and ordered him off the property immediately after hearing of the arrest.
As to the beard, why should we take it as indicative of guilt that he wants to appear as appealing as possible to the largest number of people?
Or maybe it’s as simple as his mother doesn’t like facial hair. He went to live with her, according to the Post.
27. Bender wrote:
Sebastian — do you know what an easement is?
Peter writes: Bender, I know what an easement is. I signed one when I bought my home three years ago. It is an agreement to allow government officials (police, fire, emergency responders) and utility workers (electric, gas) access to or through my property for the purposes of their job.
It is NOT to allow neighborhood kids to walk across my property so they don’t have to walk the extra fifty feet to go around the corner.
50. Frank IBC wrote:
For one, it happened at 8:40 a.m. as she was walking her child to school, not at 5:30 a.m., for whatever reason anyone would be up then.
Peter writes: Please show me the law that says you can only be naked in your home between certain hours.
Also, you call Mr. Williamson’s story self-serving. But it never occurs to you that the woman’s story is/could be just as self-serving if not more so for making such a fool of herself?
It would serve her right if, for the rest of her life, anywhere this woman is invited everyone wears no less than full winter outerwear, just to make sure they aren’t ‘upsetting’ her.
Nobody defends the freedom of the individual more than I do and all I can say is, get some curtains, moron. It surprises me that so many are jumping to the defence of an exhibitionist. I can’t even light up a spliff in my basement. So much for freedom.
Exactly why was this man’s employer called?
There are definitely legal ramifications here. Not the nudity part, with a good attorney, he will have this dropped. The calling of the employer is at issue.
America, guilty until proven innocent.
My understnding, Thomas L, is that that the house in the incident is rented by a company who employs construction divers. It’s not a household, per se, but a transient residence for their employees. So you have several roommates, most of them men, I’d guess, who don’t give a flip about decor.
The Washington Post article has a roommate saying that there were never curtains there before Williamson put them up after his arrest. I can believe that. I have stepsons.
Facts will tell if the guy is an exhibitionist, but I ain’t taking the word of one woman that that’s the case.
#75, you cited the following case law:
standing inside his home in front of an exposed window and knocking on it to attract the attention of the neighboring children
The bolding is mine, was it the woman’s testimony that Williamson was knocking on window or waving to attract attention? Failing that demonstrated intent, Williamson is innocent of indecent exposure. Why is that?
Here’s an out for you Bender, since you attacked the veracity of Williamson’s account but did not question the account of the accuser. You did not support your argument by describing the layout of the property even though you were asked to do so. Sounds like you have dispensed with presumption of innocence. Since when does the accuser NOT have to prove their case? The presumption of truthfulness on the part of the accuser is circular reasoning, because if it isn’t then its guilt by accusation and we might as well dispense with a trial. Is the accuser’s statement presumed to be truthful because she is the wife of a police officer? If it is then the blindfold on the statue of Justice is a sheer see through veil. Consider this extreme to make my point, who should be considered more believable? The President of the US or a homeless person. The answer should be neither UNDER THE LAW.
Jane – That’s all interesting but I go with what most reasonable people, who are not exhibitionists, would do when wishing to walk around the house naked and not sure if they’re on display for passersby, the neighbors and their children. Throw on a robe or close the curtains. I’m not actually buying his defenders’ argument here. It didn’t work for Professor Gates and it shouldn’t work here. Where’s the common sense? Overall, the whole thing sounds stupid.
By the way, I’ve worked around men in housing such as you describe and except for around the shower most of us don’t do this. At least, not in the kitchen and the living room.
17. homero:
don’t the liberals allow a group to bicycle around Seattle nude ?
~~~~~
Seattle’s “Fremont (Seattle neighborhood with authentic USSR Lenin statue in prominent location) Solstice Parade”, is where, as David Niven would say, “they are eager to show off their inadequacies.”
94. Bender wrote:
I would remind folks that an independent judicial officer — the magistrate who issued the warrant in this case… …has already determined that probable cause exists to believe this defendant is guilty of a crime.
Peter writes: And as anyone who has watched more than three episodes of Law & Order can quote, with the right presentation of the ‘facts,’ the prosecution could indict a ham sandwich.
That doesn’t make him guilty.
134. ked5 wrote:
Seattle’s “Fremont (Seattle neighborhood with authentic USSR Lenin statue in prominent location) Solstice Parade”, is where, as David Niven would say, “they are eager to show off their inadequacies.”
Peter writes: I visited Fremont in 2007. It’s not just for the parade. It’s part of the town ordinances that “Clothing is optional.”
(I have a picture of one of the ordinance signs. I also have a picture of me standing next to Lenin, who towers about 20 feet over me.)
Remember actor Matt McConaughey a few years back playing the bongos at his home, without attire and apparently stoned in his living room? In clear view for his neighbors to see/ hear and call the fuzz.
In that matter an outsider was caused strife due to the music.
This case seems in favor the accused. His home, his lawn, etc.,
The woman and son trespassing on his property and looking into his window – it seems kind of a moot point.
When younger I had a girlfriend who claimed people couldn’t see her naked in her 2nd floor apartment because of the ‘glare off her window’. To prove otherwise I went outside and told her to hold a number of different digits on her finger up. I saw each and every one..!
The naked man has all the trump cards to the voyeur peeping tom woman & son; the case should be dropped. She needs to be charged.
I think he looks like Jesus.
Christians are terrified of naked people. Of course he should be arrested. Probably water boarded too.
Haven’t actually read the comments, have you, tom?
Mom’s calling. She wants to know why you’re on the computer instead of in bed, since you’re home sick today.
Something needs to be done about the cops. They are invading our lives in every thing that we do. This case is absolutely stupid. Even if the guy was exposing himself on purpose, though, don’t look. If he is outside that is another matter. But people need to get off the concept of it being so bad that someone is naked. Next they will tell us it is against the law to pee in a bush.
Uh, I don’t see why people think it’s no big deal to be naked. If he had been naked in his front lawn it would be a crime clear-cut. if he had been naked in a department store in the kid’s toy section no one would be saying “Stupid puritans! Why are they so against the human form?”
This is only an issue because he was visible from the yard, and possibly the street. He could also be seen by children. If it’s accidental, which I hope, it’s one thing, but this isn’t something like Michealangelo’s David, or tasteful art. It is very odd to see as donna said, conservatives taking this tack.
Dblade, you just don’t get it. I have been naked in my house plenty of times, but to see me naked the person would have to be looking in the front porch windows. This woman did a similar thing by looking into the man’s kitchen windows while he was naked. He could not be seen from the street.
Donna is talking about Tom–not the issue itself. Reread her post & reread the article. Go buy a clue.
I’ve been doing some research on this young man today,and the Fairfax County General Court has three citations for this young man. One is for failure to control, a vehicular offense, about October 7. The next is for drunk and disorderly, October 14, and now this indecent exposure On October 19. These are public records.
Something is going on with Mr. Williamson. Or, it’s possible that he just don’t look right to the Fairfax PD.
Whatever, that does not necessarily make him guilty of indecent exposure as it is defined in Virginia.
It might behoove either the owners of the property, or the company who rents the property, to install some blinds or other window treatments in the wake of this incident. Sheers are cheap, and can be installed on simple tension rods.
Reminds me of the story: Little old lady calls police, complains she can see a naked man from her bedroom window. Police arrive, look around, can see nothing. She says: “Climb on this wardrobe”.
I have 4 kids under 5 and am frequently naked in my house. SOmetimes, I don’t realize the curtains are open. Babies want boob when they want boob, after all
Any asshat decides to make a big production of me being naked in my own home, they better have deep pockets for the lawsuit. Anyone trespasses while seeing me naked, they better have life insurance. This is texas, thank god. My property, my business. You stay off.
I have a reckless driving conviction. Does that mean I am automatically trying to expose myself? Prior run-ins with the law mean shit, unless they are exposure beefs.
121. Donna V.: “biblio44: the guy wasn’t making a spectacle of himself standing in front of the window waving at passersby. He was minding his own business.”
That wasn’t the issue I was responding to, Donna. My point was that it would be against the law for a person – any person – to stand nude before a window that faced a public thoroughfare. If you don’t agree, then … be my guest.
Just a point I don’t think has been made regarding intent: If I was blearily making coffee in the nude (which I frequently do, in fact – ours is a nudity friendly household) and saw someone trespassing on our lawn, I probably *would* follow them round to the next window – not to expose myself, but to find out who the hell was trespassing on my land and peering in my windows.
The whole idea of the naked body being something to fear is bull anyway. I hope this guy gets the vindication he deserves.
Maybe he can find somebody to take the case pro bono.
I am deeply sorry for that, but I could not help myself.
It doesn’t make any sense for him to be charged anyway just on the basis that all she saw was his torso. If she had seen the whole package it still wouldn’t have been any of her business nor should he have been charged anyway but, men walk around shirtless ALL THE TIME. Ever been to the beach? If it was first thing in the morning why should he have to wear a shirt to protect himself from a nosy neighbor with connections? She had no way to know he was naked and, as I said, even if she did its still none of her business.
This woman is just a huge B***h who is misusing the authority of her family.
146. momof4,
Seriously! Heckies! Women get enough grief for feeding their children from their breasts in public but if you can’t breastfeed in your own home because someone might ‘spy’ your breast through an window? What if the window is open and the curtain flies open from a breeze? OY VEY!
THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNNNNNNNNN!
So LAME.
absolutely communist! can’t even be nude in your own home.
Virginia is also the police state that banned nudist youth camps even though nothing bad ever happened there.
I’m a nudist & I hope the communist regime doesn’t take me.
And I’m sick of the “Think of the Children” puritans.
They don’t know that many children worldwide are happy being nude.
Maybe the trespassing woman had a thing against this neighbor. This is similar to what happened in the Salem witch trials—one neighbor accusing another who they didn’t like.
VERDICT — GUILTY
December 18, 2009
I told you dumb-asses.
And he didn’t do it just one innocent time — he did it twice, on separate occasions.
GUILTY
if his grass is the only connection of her property to the street then it’s a shared pass-trough. witch is seen as public to the persons in question, else she had no business there
So could I file charges against celebrities such as Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan for the “upskirt” and “nip-slips” that the paparazzi took as they stepped out of their cars? After all, if this guy can get convicted on his own property, which the accuser was trespassing, I’m sure the celebrities could easily be charged with public indecency in public.
I mean I’ve never heard of a school that requires you to walk there at 5:30 in the morning. I sure hope the jury took into account that the convoicting officer was married to the accuser.
He should “pass through” her lawn until he “happens” to see her being indecent’, then file charges against her.
Next time my infant daughter and I break into someones house in the early morning I will make sure I call the cops and complain about “being held against my will” or for being “abducted.”
My theory is that the woman was raping her son on his property and decided to blame him to cover up the fact that she’s a perverse freak.
Hey.
http://aurelieclaudelnude.blogspot.com
what think?